TurnTrout's shortform feed

TurnTrout

This is a special post for quick takes by TurnTrout. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

I quite appreciated Sam Bowman's recent Checklist: What Succeeding at AI Safety Will Involve. However, one bit stuck out:

In Chapter 3, we may be dealing with systems that are capable enough to rapidly and decisively undermine our safety and security if they are misaligned. So, before the end of Chapter 2, we will need to have either fully, perfectly solved the core challenges of alignment, or else have fully, perfectly solved some related (and almost as difficult) goal like corrigibility that rules out a catastrophic loss of control. This work could look quite distinct from the alignment research in Chapter 1: We will have models to study that are much closer to the models that we’re aiming to align

I don't see why we need to "perfectly" and "fully" solve "the" core challenges of alignment (as if that's a thing that anyone knows exists). Uncharitably, it seems like many people (and I'm not mostly thinking of Sam here) have their empirically grounded models of "prosaic" AI, and then there's the "real" alignment regime where they toss out most of their prosaic models and rely on plausible but untested memes repeated from the early days of LessWrong.

Alignment started making a whole lot more sense to me when I thought in mechanistic detail about how RL+predictive training might create a general intelligence. By thinking in that detail, my risk models can grow along with my ML knowledge.

32Raemon2y

I haven't read the Shard Theory work in comprehensive detail. But, fwiw I've read at least a fair amount of your arguments here and not seen anything that bridged the gap between "motivations are made of shards that are contextually activated" and "we don't need to worry about Goodhart and misgeneralization of human values at extreme levels of optimization." I've heard you make this basic argument several times, and my sense is you're pretty frustrated that people still don't seem to have "heard" it properly, or something. I currently feel like I have heard it, and don’t find it compelling. I did feel compelled by your argument that we should look to humans as an example of how "human values" got aligned. And it seems at least plausible that we are approaching a regime where the concrete nitty-gritty of prosaic ML can inform our overall alignment models in a way that makes the thought experiments of 2010 outdate. But, like, a) I don't actually think most humans are automatically aligned if naively scaled up (though it does seem safer than naive AI scaling), and b) while human-value-formation might be simpler than the Yudkowskian model predicts, it still doesn't seem like the gist of "look to humans" gets us to a plan that is simple in absolute terms, c) it seems like there are still concrete reasons to expect training superhuman models to be meaningfully quite different from the current LLMs, which aren't at a stage where I'd expect them to exhibit any of the properties I'd be worried about. (Also, in your shard theory post, you skip over the example of 'embarassment' because you can't explain it yet, and switch to sugar, and I'm like 'but, the embarrassment one was much more cruxy and important!') I don't expect to get to agreement in the comments here today, but, it feels like the current way you're arguing this point just isn't landing or having the effect you want and... I dunno what would resolve things for you or anyone else but I think it'd be better i

"we don't need to worry about Goodhart and misgeneralization of human values at extreme levels of optimization."

That isn't a conclusion I draw, though. I think you don't know how to parse what I'm saying as different from that rather extreme conclusion -- which I don't at all agree with? I feel concerned by that. I think you haven't been tracking my beliefs accurately if you think I'd come to this conclusion.

FWIW I agree with you on a), I don't know what you mean by b), and I agree with c) partially—meaningfully different, sure.

Anyways, when I talk abou... (read more)

3Noosphere892y

I think what Turntrout is saying is that people on LW have a tendency to claim that the fact that future AI will be different from present AI means that they can start privileging the hypotheses about AI alignment they predicted years ago, when you can't actually do this, and this is actually a problem I do see on LW quite a bit. We've talked about this a bit before here, but one area where I do think we can generalize from LLMs to future models is about how they represent human values, and also how they handle human values, and one of the insights is that human values are both simpler in their generative structure, and also more data dependent than a whole lot of LWers thought years ago, which also suggests an immediate alignment strategy of training in dense data sets about human values using synthetic data either directly to the AI, or to use it to create a densely defined reward function that offers much less hackability opportunity than sparsely defined reward functions. It's not about LLM safety properties, but rather about us and our values that is the important takeaway, which is why I think they can be transferred over to different AI models even as AI becomes different as they progress: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7fJRPB6CF6uPKMLWi/my-ai-model-delta-compared-to-christiano#LYyZm8JRJJ4F4wZSu Cf this part of a comment by Linch, whch gets at my point on the surprising simplicity of human values while summarizing a post by Matthew Barnett: [...] The link is below: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/i5kijcjFJD6bn7dwq/evaluating-the-historical-value-misspecification-argument#N9ManBfJ7ahhnqmu7 (I also disagree with the assumption that scaling up AI is more dangerous than scaling up humans, but that's something I'll leave for another day.)

TurnTrout's shortform feed

28

Ω 10

TurnTrout's shortform feed

28

Ω 10